The prosecution would have made sure it was stated in court IF it really happened. There is absolutely no chance that they would have not.He would have said that on the stand. On the stand, IIRC, all he said is that he didn't hear a thing.
Well i am the opposite. With his arm bent holding the glass that ended up broken and embedded in his nose, the abrasions from the tail light are pretty clear to me and aligned with the holes and shards in the arm of the sweatshirt plus the bruise on the back of the hand. Sadly they were not able to convince the jury so his killer is free right now, no matter who is thought to be responsible.The guy couldn't believe, like many of us, that his injuries were caused by Karen's car.
Thanks for that but i have seen enough by watching and following the evidence in the trial.I'm watching the Dateline from last night. You can watch it on the NBC app. You don't need to buy anything. They give you four free views of stuff.
Watch Dateline Episode: Center of the Storm - NBC.com
Watch Center of the Storm (Season 33, Episode 30) of Dateline or get episode details on NBC.comwww.nbc.com
It's also available on Peacock.
She was never charged with oui.BTW heading on the thread needs changing. It should read "GUILTY OF OUI" not "NOT GUILTY".
Thanks for that but i have seen enough by watching and following the evidence in the trial.
2 sets of 12 ALL said she was not guilty.Not even close to what both juries watched in the evidence.
2 sets of 12 ALL said she was not guilty.
Well i am the opposite. With his arm bent holding the glass that ended up broken and embedded in his nose, the abrasions from the tail light are pretty clear to me and aligned with the holes and shards in the arm of the sweatshirt plus the bruise on the back of the hand. Sadly they were not able to convince the jury so his killer is free right now, no matter who is thought to be responsible.
The most serious charges, they voted not guilty on the first one.Not guilty on two of the three charges in the first one.
AGREE!BTW heading on the thread needs changing. It should read "GUILTY OF OUI" not "NOT GUILTY".
Not guilty on two of the three charges in the first one.
What are you talking about? Semantics or something? Was it OWI or DUI rather? Same thing basically and she was found guilty.She was never charged with oui.
Your pet case and you said flat out on here you were not watching any of the trial so I'd say if you didn't you then you are the one who missed a lot. No?Not even close to what both juries watched in the evidence.
I don't think that's right. Remember it was hung? If she was cleared, she would not have been retried. People need to quit saying she was found innocent on all, she was not. In either trial.2 sets of 12 ALL said she was not guilty.
Yeah, some of us heard both experts. Hard to say what you watched. No offense. Vinnie?The defense's expert couldn't make the backlight break in the same way.
Yeah, apparently she did not come over here and get licensed, she said she knew a little or some law. There were just a lot of things, some even little with her. Who is lying as to the crowds and fans adding a lot of pressure, the first juror or her? Weren't they on the same jury?Attorney, from Brazil.
Lol. Part of the same club. Mob influence.I'm almost always inerested to hear from others so that I can at least try to understand why they think like they do but in this instance it's not only pointless but I don't give a damn.
She was. She was charged with manslaughter while OUI but they just found her guilty of OUI so thread title should be changed to reflect that verdict. Its blatantly wrong for it to say NOT GUILTY. She on probation.She was never charged with oui.
She was pissed as a fart and couldn't even remember where she dropped him. She thought she had left him at the Waterfall. I think she's an alcoholic TBH.Yeah, some of us heard both experts. Hard to say what you watched. No offense. Vinnie?